That account is a troll account or someone who is learning disabled. They put out a Top 10 Pac-12 players. The first three make sense and then just turns into what in the actual fuck is?
Assuming it's the same time period, I wouldn't put Paints Nails at #3. I haven't even heard of a few of them. Brandin Cooks is debatable. Lee was really fucking good in college and I expected him to do well in the NFL though he didn't. I thought he made Barkley look better than he was. Don't know how at least one of the UW dbs don't get in there ... at least BB.
Paints Nails is like the weirdest Heisman winner of all time and I'd easily put Penix and Nix ahead of him in this time frame and I'm not even an anti-Paints Nails guy. I think he could be unbelievable in the NFL. He just never won a fucking thing. He never won a bowl game or championship game and did he ever even beat a ranked team?
Lee had one of the best seasons I've ever seen from a college WR as a sophomore but then was banged up and didn't do much the next year. Cooks had two really good seasons but didn't play in a lot of important games and plenty of other receivers in this time frame match him like Odunze.
Agree. The one think Paints Nails did was at a game I actually attended. Red River Shootout, Texas jumps on OU and what's his name pulls Spencer Rattler and Williams comes in and on the first play runs it for a 50 yd. TD. Then he hit some great passes and brought them from behind to beat Texas. Boom. Legend born. His Tombstone will say he lost to Tulane in the Cotton Bowl.
Caleb was a 5* recruit and had a huge year as a true freshman when he eventually took over.
Transfers to the usc team (so now all west coasts journalists are watching him too) that went 4-8 the year before.
Goes 11-1, ending the regular season with back to back wins over 15/16 ucla/Notre Dame
This is when Heisman voting happened
He wouldn't have won if voting took place after getting rolled in the pac 12 championship and losing to tulane (lol) in their bowl game
Reason for the award votes (position trophys/all American votes etc) being at that point is that not every conference has a conference championship game, and not every team goes to a bowl game, so can create recency bias.
So makes sense at that point.... Easy to look back and wonder about it without the context.
Good argument to be made for award voting being after the season, but then you might get a situation where, idk, two best interior linemen have 7 and 11 sacks (for the purpose of argument let's assume this is the only measurable metric)
7's team wins conference and makes it to the natty. Gets 5 sacks in those 3 games to go up to 12
11's team sucks and season ends after the regular schedule.
Now instead of 7/11, it's 12/11, and when it comes to awards we all know the vast majority of journalists barely watch the teams they cover let alone teams across the country so they just see 12/11 without the context of the extra 3 games.
Whats the solution? I don't know, could start by asking people who would normally get votes to name 5 players at the position they're voting for that isn't in their conference, or played against the team they cover. Standards for being a voter should be at least above casual fan knowledge of the position you're voting, not journalism capability.
Tldr summary: I shouldn't have taken adderall so late, Jesus
His sophomore year is up there with best college WRs I have ever seen. He didn't do much as a junior though. I don't think he was as big or as fast as I thought he was.
Comments
Not really that weird
Caleb was a 5* recruit and had a huge year as a true freshman when he eventually took over.
Transfers to the usc team (so now all west coasts journalists are watching him too) that went 4-8 the year before.
Goes 11-1, ending the regular season with back to back wins over 15/16 ucla/Notre Dame
This is when Heisman voting happened
He wouldn't have won if voting took place after getting rolled in the pac 12 championship and losing to tulane (lol) in their bowl game
Reason for the award votes (position trophys/all American votes etc) being at that point is that not every conference has a conference championship game, and not every team goes to a bowl game, so can create recency bias.
So makes sense at that point.... Easy to look back and wonder about it without the context.
Good argument to be made for award voting being after the season, but then you might get a situation where, idk, two best interior linemen have 7 and 11 sacks (for the purpose of argument let's assume this is the only measurable metric)
7's team wins conference and makes it to the natty. Gets 5 sacks in those 3 games to go up to 12
11's team sucks and season ends after the regular schedule.
Now instead of 7/11, it's 12/11, and when it comes to awards we all know the vast majority of journalists barely watch the teams they cover let alone teams across the country so they just see 12/11 without the context of the extra 3 games.
Whats the solution? I don't know, could start by asking people who would normally get votes to name 5 players at the position they're voting for that isn't in their conference, or played against the team they cover. Standards for being a voter should be at least above casual fan knowledge of the position you're voting, not journalism capability.
Tldr summary: I shouldn't have taken adderall so late, Jesus
I might go shitty Jon Wilner when we go full off season and do a bunch of Pac-12 rankings if anyone is interested.
Do it
I was always surprised Marqise Lee didn't dominate the NFL. He was my favorite WR for years and he just absolutely smoked fools.
His sophomore year is up there with best college WRs I have ever seen. He didn't do much as a junior though. I don't think he was as big or as fast as I thought he was.